Talk:James T. Kirk/archive
There is some confusion as to James Kirk academy days. The conventional wisdom is that 15 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" Kirk was an instructor at the academy. "Where No Man" Does not say Kirk was a freshman, and if you read Gary in a certain way, you'd think he is an instructor. I for one thought that what Gary said could be interpret in another way, but that is not important. Conceder that in "Shore Leave" They clearly Pain Kirk as a Freshman. Finnegan keeps calling Kirk a Plebe, which means Freshman, and Kirk states, "that was 15 years ago." this clearly states two facts. 1 that Kirk was a Freshman 15 years ago, and that "Not Man" and "Shore Leave" could not have been more then a year apart. --TOSrules 09:22, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST) :A lot of the dates in that article are taken from the ST Chronology without questioning. Under close scrutiny most of these dates don't hold water. For example, the dialogue in "Court Martial" makes it very clear that Kirk served aboard the Republic after his academy days. And nobody in "Obsession" states that the Farragut was Kirk's first assignment. Any "15 years ago" comment could be taken in the ambiguous sense, possibly 16 or 17 years ago even, so this "clearly states" very little except giving us a general idea of when to date it. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:20, 8 Jan 2005 (CET) :You are talking about the law of Approximation, which simply means that when certain number are used like 15 20, 100 and many others that the mind gravitates to that they could refer to a more general range of number. But this law is Void when you deal with age or schooling. --TOSrules 06:16, Jan 23, 2005 (CET) ::I don't find that very convincing. I can't find any reason to state that it is impossible for someone to say "i was in school 15 years ago" when they actually are thinking of a date 16 or 18 years previous, or even 14 years previous. I do that all the time in everyday speech, and even to some degree in more formal conversation. So this so-called "Law" of yours really doesn't change at all -- and I still find the entire notion of trying to prove that no one could speak otherwise to be counter-intuitive and a rather dubious use of circuitous logic. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:37, 23 Jan 2005 (CET) For what it's worth I would have to side with TOSrules on this one, after balancing both of your arguments, I can't see a statement like '15 years ago' meaning anything but 15 years ago. Tyrant 19:52, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant Removal of Service Record My addition of Kirk's service record was removed within 5 minutes without discussion. I think it deserves a little bit more than that and people ought to be more polite before deleting a major portion of someone else's work. Also, one of the reasons was that it contained "non-canon" information. That was addressed when I put it in and also most of what was there comes out of publications put forth by publishers of the show. -Husnock 7Jan05 :I was perfectly polite, unless "removed Starfleet Service Record: duplicates Chronology, contains non-canon information" is an insult? I did not think discussion was required, since my reasoning was in the edit summary. Saying it contains non-canon info doesn't mean it can stay in the article, non-canon info is not permitted in the main article at all, regardless of attribution. I suggest you read Memory Alpha:Canon Policy and Memory Alpha:Canon Policy FAQ for what is and is not a valid resource for inclusion in an article. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 00:39, Jan 8, 2005 (CET) ::I tried to fix it up. Hope its okay now. -Husnock :::Still contains non-canon information re: promotion dates, and contradiction with dates established in the article. I have removed said errors and info. Note that the Star Trek Chronology itself is contradicted by later references in filmed Trek, particularly in regards to the five-year mission, reducing its effectiveness as an information source. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 00:57, Jan 8, 2005 (CET) Needs attention *James T. Kirk. Could anyone check the key episodes concerning Kirk's early life and compare them with the article? --James Cody 17:39, 15 Dec 2004 (CET) Star Trek IV At the end of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Kirk pled guilty on behalf of his crew to the charges brought against them. When the other charges were cleared, they accepted his guilty plea for the remaining disobedience charge. Therefore he pled guilty, not was found guilty. --Kitch 10:29, 28 Mar 2005 (EST) Vice Admiral or Full Admiral? In the "Key Dates" section, it says "2284: Returns to Starfleet as a Vice Admiral at Starfleet Academy." I was just wondering if this was confirmed, as additional material provided on the "special features" disc of the Star Trek 2 - The Director's Edition DVD, I forget the gentleman's name, but he was talking about redesigning the rank insignia, and they showed a chart the guy had made with the ranks on it, and it appeared that if that chart was correct, Kirk at the time of Wrath of Khan was a full Admiral (I'll also grant the possibility that he was promoted during the time he was an instructor). I'll link the design drawing (a screencap I did) here: Wrath of Khan full Admiral insignia (Design Drawing)